The Indian media strategy
The Indian media strategy
Whilst the Indian compliments towards our leader are much appreciated, we must be aware of what is behind this extra warmth towards him.
Reprinted from: http://www.infopak.gov.pk/writeups/The_Indian_media_strategy.htm
(Courtesy `The News`, April 21, 2005)
Raania Ahmed
Pakistani hawks or doves would no doubt agree that when it comes to being sensitive to the designs of the Indian media, we as a nation must be unified in purpose. There is no doubt in any Pakistani`s mind that the resolution of the Kashmir issue is of the utmost importance. It is in our "veins". The difference occurs in methodology of negotiation adopted. Whenever a strategy has produced such a deadlock over the last 57 years, it has perhaps been prudent to shift paradigm, think "out of box" and start doing things differently. The bigger issue is to be well aware of the Indian agenda and its execution through an intelligently designed media strategy.
At the onset, it is quite clear to all what the larger Indian game plan is: the "incredible India" campaign is all about power projection and perception management. Or as their newfound friend Condoleeza Rice puts it, India is "the democracy, which is taking global responsibility". Everyday, there are numerous examples of India`s savvy strategy. Take April 15 as a case in point. To coincide with Foreign Minister Natwar`s trip to the US in search of a larger role through the UNSC permanent seat, India had stage-managed some other media events. Other than Ms Rice`s statement endorsing this self image to an extent, or Bush`s consolation statement and an audience for Natwar in the Oval office, there was unrelated news to make up for this missed target of getting US approval for their UNSC seat.
It came in the form of a BBC report about the possibility of an Indian Pope, whose qualifications were projected favourably as being the most eligible candidate from the deserving developing world. Secondly, another well-orchestrated story on the same channel reported how the Indian Airforce had reconstructed Nicobar islands after the tsunami and how India refused foreign assistance in the reconstruction due to "confidence in their new position in the world". A report on the same day in Voice of Germany on "India proving its supremacy with speedy work on Agni 111 missile" made the same power projection point. It is quite possible that one unassuming consumer would have been unconsciously hit with all these examples. Constant barrage of such marketing no doubt creates the perception of the globality of the Indian position in due course - marketing dollars well spent, no doubt.
In the same framework, let us now turn to the President`s Indian visit. An interesting article from a famous RAW sponsored think tank called Saag appeared in The News, the day the "hero of Kargil" arrived in Delhi (April 16). According to the report, the Indian media had been instructed: "Our objective should not be to deny him (Musharraf) the theatre which he always seeks but use that to cut him down to size." Whilst this objective was leaked on purpose, it ended in achieving a different objective.
It is interesting to note how the success parameters for the trip were well defined in a later paragraph detailing his objectives, which the Indian media was advised to make him fail at: "To restore the focus in the eyes of the international community on the search for a mutually acceptable solution to the Kashmir question as the only way of averting another military conflict in the region, while maintaining the momentum on the CBMs which enjoy considerable international support, to draw the focus away from them by projecting them as tactical palliatives without much strategic significance if there is no forward movement in the negotiations on the Kashmir issue and to redirect the spotlight on the Hurriyat leaders in order to help them recover the lost ground."
Debate on whether the trip was successful or not would be fairly unproductive at this stage, since however objective one might be, one`s opinion is easily clouded by one`s political affiliation. A staunch Musharraf supporter would point out that finally some headway was made in the direction of the Kashmir resolution dispute as demonstrated by the clause: "In this spirit the two leaders addressed the issue of Jammu and Kashmir and agreed to continue these discussions in a sincere and purposeful and forward looking manner for a final settlement." The die-hard might also claim with some certitude that the CBMs undertaken were Kashmir related so as to enable an improvement in the living conditions of Kashmiris, as well as clearly establishing the "unofficial triangle" between the Indian and Pakistani officials and the Kashmiri leadership.
On the other hand the cynics would claim that there was nothing substantial in the talks. And as a PPPP leader put it, when PPPP had done the same and talked of softer borders they were called a "security risk". While the extremist might suggest that "the general had knelt down before India" having compromised the cause once and for all, in order to do more trade. And so the arguments continue.
The real issue is to be aware of how the Indian media was singularly focused on projecting Musharraf as a changed man who had come to India with a new heart. Favourable reporting on the president on a mission "where he gave the impression of being in command whereas India appeared as the more confused and vacillating partner", with reference to Seema Mustafa`s comments, can be appreciated. Declaring Agra as a "no ball", which the president would now want to clean bowl.
Constant reminders of Agra and the hype created about the difference between Musharraf, the statesman of Delhi with the changed heart, were visible throughout the visit. In fact provoking the general into saying that he was irritated with the "same heart" -- this tagline attached to him, whereas in fact things were very different now and his heart had changed. Prabu Chawla`s analysis was that geography/territory could perhaps not be changed but hearts and people boundaries could bring about peace (Kamran Khan`s talkshow, Geo). Even Mahesh Butt expressed his complimentary thoughts recently in print media: "It is not what he said but how he said what he said that demolished my preconceived notions about him."
Whilst the Indian compliments towards our leader are much appreciated, we must be aware of what is behind this extra warmth towards him. They have perhaps realised that their sweet talk will not deflect the `K` issue`s importance in the General`s statements. The President`s sign off at the Editor`s Guild perhaps said it all. When asked whether in his new heart there was less or more of Kashmir, he responded that it was not a matter of hearts. That if Kashmir was not resolved, there was no telling what would happen. .
